BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

Dominik Holzer

international journal of architectural computing

issue 04, volume 09 463

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

Dominik Holzer

Abstract
This paper aims at exposing seven prevailing problems that have
emerged in the uptake of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in
design practice.The paper provides a reality check between an idealistic
view on BIM and the way it is currently applied in daily use. In order to
reflect on the issues at hand, the author draws from three years of
doctoral research in multidisciplinary design collaboration, followed by
more than two years experience as Design Technology director in a
large scale architecture practice. In addition to the above, his current
role as the chair of the BIM and IPD Steering Group of the Australian
Institute of Architects and Consult Australia exposes the author to a
broad range of cultural implications of BIM.The findings presented here
illustrate that, despite major advances in the development of BIM, there
are predominantly cultural roadblocks to its implementation in practice.

464

1. INTRODUCTION
Deeply rooted in various areas of research and development in
computational design over the past 20-30 years [1], BIM starts to become
commonplace in everyday building practice [2]. Professionals from a diverse
range of backgrounds in the building industry, such as architects, engineers,
or contractors, have high expectations towards BIM for efficiency gains and
for more integrated collaboration with their partners. As part of the
industrys transition from CAD to BIM, we currently witness a fundamental
shift in the way building projects are conceived and delivered.This paper
acknowledges the process change in the industry that is triggered through
BIM, and it attempts to take a critical standpoint by analysing the prevailing
misconceptions and problem areas the implementation of BIM encounters
in practice.
The seven deadly sins as presented in this paper are preceded by
various critical reflections on the uptake of computationally assisted design
in practice [3], [4], [5], [6].The strongest alignment between the purpose of
this paper and examples in previous literature can be found with the
descriptions of CAADs seven deadly sins [4] as well as CAADs seven
arguable virtues [7].This paper does not attempt to compare the sins or
virtues of CAD with those of BIM; instead the issues exposed here
represent problems specific to BIM implementation in current architectural
practice.
The accounts provided here are based on the following sources:

A three year, government funded research project (Delivering

Digital Architecture in Australia) completed by the author as main
researcher, forming the basis of his PhD on design collaboration.

A series of four public BIM forums (two of which facilitated by the

author) with leading industry experts; resulting in the publication of
a national report titled: BIM in Australia 2010 [8]

an industry survey undertaken with 12 Australian architecture

firms, 18 engineering consultants (structural and mechanical) and 5
Australian contractors.

BIM clauses in about 20-25 project briefs that were reviewed by

the author over the past year in his role as Design Technology
Director of a large Australian architecture firm.

2. SEVEN SINS IN IMPLEMENTING BIM

The seven sins described here are listed in no particular order. It is not
claimed that sins related to the implementation of BIM are limited to the
number of seven.Those sins discussed here represent some of the most
common examples the author has experienced and witnessed in his
practice work.The author acknowledges the specific geographical context
(Australia) that provides the background to the issues alluded to in this

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

465

paper. In awareness of global trends related to BIM, the author is convinced

that the sins listed here defy local boundaries and that they are likely to be
found in other countries where BIM gets implemented.The sins commonly
committed in the implementation of BIM will see variations over time as the
industry uptake progresses and as BIM methods will take hold of wider
parts of planning, design and operation of buildings.

2.1.Technocentricity focus on software instead of design

culture
BIM is often misconceived as being a new version of what the industry
associates with CAD and its uptake over the past two to three decades.
Those who witnessed the transition from manual drafting processes to
CAD about 20-25 years ago will have seen how CAD in architectural
practice was predominantly used to replicate drafting and visualisation
processes which previously were done manually. CAD helped designers to
carry out these processes on the computer for higher speed, accuracy and
for photo-realistic visualisation. For most users, technology was the driver
to facilitate this change and the computer was the conduit for the change
to happen.There are parallels in the transition from manual work to CAD
and the move from CAD to BIM, but some fundamental differences also
exist. One of those differences is that a technology-centric view on BIM
(which is apparent in those practices who believe that implementing it is
about implementing new software) will inevitably lead to fundamental
problems in understanding BIM as a method for conceiving buildings in the
first place.
As stated by Randy Deutsch [9], a highly regarded BIM critic in the US,
BIM processes do not simply replicate CAD processes more effectively
using 3D software. BIM is about an entire process change that impacts
nearly all activities related to the planning, delivery and operation of
buildings on a social, a business and even a political level. Further, BIM
allows users to engage the building supply chain from the inception stage
to its operation and demolition in an unprecedented manner. Illustrated by
Larry Downes [10] in his Law of Disruption graph [Figure 1], the
technological aspect of process change undergoes the most radical
transformation over time.
Moving to BIM necessitates profound changes in common work
processes inter-organisationally as well as intra-organisationally. Changes
related to staffing, training, project team configuration and project
infrastructure impact previously established processes and they may even
affect the entire business model of a practice.
When working in BIM on projects, those using it need to define new
responsibilities, and possibly even new roles, which include the setup of
office BIM standards, the management BIM models, the creation of specific
BIM model content for libraries and families, and protocols for the

466

Dominik Holzer

coordination of multi-disciplinary BIM models. On a project team (social)

level, it is advisable to include at least one member who possesses good
BIM model management skills to coordinate those contributing to the
shared model.
On a cultural and political level, when BIM gets introduced to a practice
some staff will find it easier than others to embrace the new possibilities it
has to offer. A practices leadership is well advised to consider those who
will be taken out of their comfort zone and who will be anxious about the
changes BIM may bring to their work. Project architects or engineers who
traditionally were used to open up a CAD file to review and finalise changes
will find it much more difficult to get direct access to the documentation
output in the context of BIM models.

Figure 1: Larry Downes, Law of
Disruption.

2.2. Ambiguity
During the Australian industry forums on BIM (as mentioned in the
introduction), architects, engineers and contractors agreed that one of the
major hindering factors in the adoption of BIM in design practice is the high
level of ambiguity about the range of services it constitutes [8]. Lacking a
differentiated view on the value BIM adds to projects, clients are likely to be
reluctant to compensate their consultants for BIM related services. BIM
proponents continuously highlight the benefit it provides to designers,
design consultants and contractors during all stages of design and beyond.
At the same time, they appropriate many aspects of computational design
that were initially not directly related to BIM, to better market the concept
of BIM and its overarching capacity to inform the way we conceive,
construct, and manage buildings. Design computation processes that help

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

467

architects and engineers to explore formal topologies, to resolve complex

systems, and to rationalize geometry are increasingly being labeled with a
BIM tag [11]. At the same time, saleable acronyms for simplifying and
describing specific aspects of BIM become ever more widespread in the
industry. Such acronyms include: 4D BIM for construction scheduling, 5D
BIM for costing, 6D BIM for environmentally sustainable design and 7D BIM
for as-built information that feeds into Facility Management.
Less well-informed users may be tempted to associate BIM with
everything interesting one could achieve in architecture with the help of
computational design.This is not helped by the fact that the term Building
Information Modeling is general in nature and it could be used to describe
any activity that involves 3D architectural design.The industry lacks specific
definitions of distinct BIM services as they are emerging in practice (with an
associated spectrum of fees). BIM users experience an overall increase of
the interfacing capability between multiple, previously segregated, areas of
computational design. BIMs potential for linking intelligent building
information through various types of enquiry and during various stages of
design should prompt users to define a spectrum of BIM related activities. If
those who design and deliver BIM manage to catalogue and profile the
range of services they offer, they allow their clients to understand the base
deliverables, as well as the added value, of specific services in BIM. Figure 2
provides an overview of potential services that form part of a BIM
Spectrum which the author is currently proposing to his design practice for
consideration and selection.
 Figure 2: Author, Illustrating 25
services that may form part of a
practices BIM spectrum.

Another crucial aspect to establishing a firms distinct BIM profile, is the

need to understand the transitions between the divergent, open-ended, and
often erratic processes of design exploration, the more convergent
processes of assembling and sharing intelligent geometrical objects in 3D,

468

Dominik Holzer

and the creation of shop-drawings for construction and beyond.The

identification and implementation of such digital ecologies [Figure 3] can
assist designers and their teams to develop a specific design signature.When
considering software use that feeds into digital ecologies, architects first
map out the multi-facetted flow of information related to their design
thinking, their planning and documentation processes, and their information
output to other stakeholders.

Figure 3: A typical digital software

ecology based on a commercial tower
project

With a clear understanding of the design deliverables, the most appropriate

range of software to assist with them, and the interoperability between the
various tools applied, BIMs becomes a hub for information exchange during
the planning phase of a project and beyond. Mapping out digital ecologies
helps designers and consultants to move with confidence between
dedicated (but sometimes narrowly focused) design tasks, and those
processes that promise to strengthen design delivery across the whole
project team.

2.3. Elision
One diagram in particular has been central to propagating the benefits and
effects of BIM in the building industry. It is a graph created published by the
American Institute of Architects via one of their members, HOKs CEO
Patrick MacLeamy [12]. In the graph, MacLeamy plots effort/effect against.
time to then illustrate the difference of the effort/effect graph over time in a
pre and post BIM scenario. One curve shows the main effort in pre-BIM
times mainly within the advanced design stages and procurement.With the
use of BIM that curve is shifted to the left towards the earlier design stages,
where changes are easier, and less costly, to accommodate.The message is
clear and the diagram has enjoyed extensive exposure both in publications,
as well as in numerous BIM presentations, adding to its cultural significance
over the past five years. It is used as reference to promote the usefulness of

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

469

BIM to a variety of stakeholders such as architects, engineers, project

managers and BIM software vendors.
Overall, the graph [Figure 4] is a positive contribution to the
propagation of BIM in the industry as it communicates in very basic terms
what can be achieved through BIM and it highlights the inefficiencies of preBIM work methods. It is assumed in this paper that MacLeamys goal was to
achieve the above. MacLeamy could not foresee or influence the dynamic
the diagram has taken since its publication, fostered by those who merely
use it to highlight the benefits of BIM without scrutinising its content.With
several years gone by since the graph was first published in 2005, BIM
uptake in the industry has advanced significantly.
 Figure 4: Patrick MacLeamy,
AIA/HOK, Effort/Effect over time. BIM
vs. traditional approach.

When considering the MacLeamy diagram in retrospect and in more detail,

it seems to present processes in the uptake of BIM in an overly simplistic
manner. Several researchers have already pointed out deficiencies of the
diagram such as changes through BIM on Operation [13], the actual
distribution of the Effort/Effect curve [14] or the lack of critical thought
related to its impact on design quality [15]. Operational aspects and a
variation of the distribution of the effort/effect curve are also highlighted in
Figure 5, which presents an effort/effect curve based on the experience of
the Australian architecture firm Rice Daubney.
In his original graph, MacLeamy shifts the curve denoting main
investment or effort to the left, but he does not consider that, by doing so,
the project duration beyond procurement is likely to diminish.This occurs
due to added benefits during construction where the contractor can rely on
a better integrated documentation set with clashes resolved prior to going
on site. Upon examination of the graph, questions emerge as to how far
MacLeamy bases the graduation of its curves merely on informal
observations at work, or on any quantifiable data from within design

470

Dominik Holzer

practice. In case of the former, the significance of the diagram is likely to be

overstated by its users. In the case of the latter one should question the
validity of that data used to produce it. Industry feedback exposes that
practitioners are likely to experience an effort curve with a less abrupt
finish than shown by MacLeamy and with a slight increase at the start of
each project phase [14]. Architects and their consultants have to gear up
much earlier in conceptual design. Darren Tims from Rice Daubney presents
this as a positive development as he sees it as ultimately leading to better
design.Tims argues that the uncertainties related to the adoption of BIM
force consultants to take on more risk from a business perspective.

Figure 5: Darren Tims of Rice

Daubney: Interpretation of the
MacLeamy graph based on real life
data.

The MacLeamy graph is indifferent regarding who benefits from, or pays for,
the change in effort achieved through BIM. If project teams are able to
integrate construction knowledge into design, who is doing the work, and
who benefits most from it? In depth quantitative studies [16], [17] with
design practitioners, consultants, contractors and owner/operators hint in
the direction that the beneficiaries are mainly the clients and contractors.
On the other hand, it is mainly the architects and the mechanical engineers
who increasingly have to take over coordination that would usually be taken
on by the contractors as well as sub-contractors.
As a simple rule, the smarter the BIM (or the assembly of several BIMs),
the more useful information it will contain specific to each of its
contributors. In order to achieve a high level of usefulness, that information
needs to be managed, coordinated and associated with individual objects in
the BIM.The level of development of a highly informed BIM will, by nature,
depend on input from various stakeholders. An open dialogue is required
where those stakeholders resolve what kind of information the BIM should
contain and who is responsible for adding it (and for setting up intelligent
filters for sorting it). Any effort in doing so needs to be communicated
upfront between the client, the contractor, and the consultants in order to

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

471

secure appropriate financial compensation.This is the only way a valid

effort/effect curve can be established for each contributing party.

2.4. Hypocrisy the IPD excuse

BIM by itself makes little sense in design practice. Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD) is hailed as BIMs twin sister as it associates project
procurement and a predefined partnership among collaborators with the
appropriation of design data through BIM [18]. IPD allows us to tap into the
potential BIM has to offer, based on procurement and collaboration
principles that foster teamwork rather than litigation. However, IPD is barely
applied to projects yet.The effort needed to achieve pure IPD is prohibitive
to the point that the building industry globally is yet to see a mainstream
adoption by project teams in practice. Paradoxically, the mention of IPD has
currently either become an excuse to cover for the shortcomings of BIM or
it is used as buzz-word by teams who claim to do IPD simply because they
share their model information using coordination software such as
NavisworksTM or SolibriTM.To this point, the discourse about IPD in practice
has predominantly been led by industry bodies and software vendors. They
try to sell an idea that in theory makes sense, but hits substantial
roadblocks in practice. Such an idealistic introduction suffers from a lack of
critical scrutiny that does justice to IPDs cultural significance. IPD requires
the upfront resolution of cultural, political, legal and business related aspects
of architectural design and delivery in order to pave the way for its
implementation.
From a theoretical perspective, the idea of an integrated Building
Information Model is valid.The concept of BIM in general considers the
entire building supply chain (from a management, ecology, and a stakeholder
perspective) and the entire building lifecycle (from a time and sustainability
perspective).The reason why BIM by itself makes limited sense in practice is
the clash between well established ways of procuring building projects
(predominantly considering procurement through competitive tendering),
and the contractual/collaboration specific agreements required to derive
real benefits from BIM. Users can only get substantial value out of BIM if
they share information related to a projects delivery across the entire
project team as early as possible. Comparing this aspiration with the typical
means by which project teams are organised at present, a dilemma becomes
evident.The building industry operates predominantly within the system of
design-bid-build, where the mentality of involved parties is in many ways risk
averse, focused on individual participants benefits, and ultimately litigious in
nature.
Putting the project and the team before ones own interests is a concept
that may not appeal to everyone in an industry where the players
traditionally operate with a strong focus on their own organisation. IPD is
not simply about avoiding conflicts, but is a collaboration-based framework

472

Dominik Holzer

that allows teams to resolve conflicts amicably and in a short matter of

time, once they arise
In order to derive true value out of BIM through IPD, a mindset is
required, where collaborating partners put stronger emphasis on the
project and the intra-organisational team instead of the immediate
interests of their own organisation.This process is complicated by the fact
that members constituting the project team are often not yet selected at
the start, where they would have the greatest impact on the project. Having
others on board in decision making processes during the early design stages
may be hard to accept for architects, who are often skeptical of the value of
contractor involvement at the outset.Teams who take IPD seriously will
first engage in profound discussions about intellectual property, professional
indemnity (and related insurances), collaboration culture, model audit trails,
and the sharing of risk among various project partners including the client.
IPD projects therefore require substantial buy-in from clients who
ultimately carry the risk for deciding on the procurement type of their
projects and who are the most vulnerable party in the early days of IPD
style collaboration.

2.5. Delusion asking for 2D while requiring 3D work

Despite the continuous development and industry uptake of BIM over the
past 8-10 years, the ultimate deliverables for designers still remain the
submission of 2D documentation.While the end product has stayed the
same, the means of achieving it have changed drastically.
A major part of the authors responsibility as Design Technology director
at a large scale architecture firm is to review BIM deliverables in project
briefs and Request for Proposal documents. In doing so, the author has
been exposed to approximately 25 of such documents over the past year.
One aspect that most of those documents have in common is that clients
ask for 2D documentation deliverables only, while demanding BIM to be
implemented at the same time for the coordination of building information.
While the fees remain based on the provision of 2D documents, the focus
on 2D is misleading. It carries with it a range of hidden deliverables and
additional work by consultants.They often need to coordinate their 3D BIM
work to a level far exceeding their traditional 2D deliverables, in order to
achieve a set of high-quality 2D documents.
Architects think and develop their ideas spatially; they are using 2D
plans/sections as temporary abstractions of their ideas in order to simplify
their concepts and communicate them to other design partners and the
builder.We currently experience a paradox episode in the use of BIM:
Consultants still need to abstract the smart 3D assemblies from
coordinated BIM models into 2D representations in order to communicate
design intent. In addition, we cannot rely on actual 3D construction
information when communicating with builders, as they base their work on

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

473

traditional 2D plans and sections. A good portion of relevant building

information never gets modeled when considering a level of detail in the
magnitude of 1:20 and below. At that scale communication of intent can
easier be handled in 2D compared to the effort that would be required to
produce the same level of information in 3D and in consideration of file-size
and current computing power to manipulate/visualise a large number of
detailed 3D information.
Overall, the industry seems to accept the 3D to 2D abstraction method.
Apart from a small number of (often experimental) examples [19], [20]
automated manufacture and a direct transition from BIM to built artifact is
not commonplace as mainstream means of delivery. Consultant agreements
only refer to 2D documents as the primary deliverables for tender and
construction submission.This approach is regularly combined with clauses
prompting all consultants to use BIM software for team-internal
coordination purposes only, excluding the use of BIM for contractor or
client coordination. Based on requests in project briefs, collaborating
consultants typically agree to a minimum level of detail required to achieve
2D documentation at the outset of a project.The deeper a collaborating
team moves into the project, the less likely they are able to ignore the need
to fully resolve coordination issues in 3D.The entire team is relying on the
accuracy and current status of each others model.The danger related to
this scenario is that cross-referencing milestone 2D drawings occurs less
frequently in BIM and that documentation sets quickly become outdated.
Problems arise when clients, project managers or even contractors demand
2D output from BIM models for tenders to be on par with construction
issue status.The level of detail required for coordinating the positioning and
visualisation of all fixtures and mechanical units in their final locations can
protract the documentation process substantially.With a requirement for
architects to show consultants design data as part of their 2D documents
(e.g. in the Reflected Ceiling Plans) they need to certify that their drawings
are fully coordinated. In most cases this can only efficiently be achieved by
coordinating the BIM data from all relevant stakeholders and by resolving
clashes as they occur in 3D. Ultimately, sound 2D deliverables based on BIM
can only be achieved through detailed 3D coordination. No matter what the
contract says, there is still client and inter-consultant expectations about
what a BIM model should offer. Designers and consultants can get caught up
by ill-defined or misinterpreted deliverables and they need to protect their
interests by rethinking how to itemise their fee proposals.Those
implementing BIM currently see a new type of document, the Project
Execution Plan [21], emerging in the building industry that addresses the
challenges mentioned above and that complements contractual agreements.
It aims at clarifying the responsibilities and accountabilities in the delivery of
BIM content for each contributing party for each project stage. In addition
to providing a procedural guideline for the exchange of BIM related project

474

Dominik Holzer

information, Project Execution Plans also include specific role descriptions

and duties for individual model managers and the overall model coordinator.
Further, Project Execution Plans are used to communicate to the
contractors and clients what will be achieved / delivered through BIM, based
on the specific intent and remuneration dealt with in the contract.

2.6. Diffidence denying the need for process change

When adopting BIM, the question arises how high a practice should aim in
subscribing to new and innovative methods facilitated by BIM. How should
one stage a transition from established (mostly CAD based) processes and
protocols to becoming mature and proficient users (or even leaders) of BIM
methods? The effects of BIM on any established work methods are
disruptive by nature.The process change intrinsic to BIM implementation is
substantial, and it requires a venturous mindset plus the willingness to take
risks by a practices leadership in order to succeed. A step by step
approach with small increments will in many ways not suffice to enable true
change. Some of the requirements for change when implementing BIM are:

substantial up-front cost for purchasing BIM software licenses.

substantial up-front cost upgrading computer hardware and

network capability.

substantial up-front cost for training staff.

Some less obvious (but necessary) requirements include the:

setup of internal BIM standards (most likely little related to existing

CAD standards).

cultivation of a solid BIM content library (substantial effort/cost to

establish).

recruitment of BIM knowledgeable staff (and laying off staff who

will not or cannot commit).
These efforts provide a practice with a foundation for the sound
implementation of BIM on projects and they will allow the practice to
respond to expectations by clients, consultants and contractors.
Still, there is more a practice needs to do. Delivering 2D documentation
based on 3D models is only one element within an entire range of possible
services related to BIM. Recent project briefs by clients and contractors
show that deliverables for architects (and others) are undergoing major
changes in the current market place. If the provision of high quality
documentation (and in some cases supervision on site) was the end-goal in
a consultants traditional deliverables, they currently see an entire new
spectrum of services requested by clients. 3D Massing, Solar Studies, Model
Coordination, Clash Detection, BIM Management,Virtual Walk-Throughs,
Occupants Training, Construction Scheduling, and Facilities Management are
just a few examples. Most of these services have little to no precedence
compared to the services architects and engineers are used to providing.
Further, clients seem to expect their consultants to provide them for no

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

475

additional fee. A first reaction for consultants who are caught up in this
scenario may therefore be to dismiss the unfamiliar and focus on their firms
core capabilities.
In 2010 the author conducted an industry study for his design practice
where BIM leaders of about 40 Australian architecture, engineering and
construction firms were interviewed.The study revealed that a majority of
those interviewed had been engaged with BIM for more than two years.The
study further illustrated challenges for BIM enabled practices to
complement their implementation efforts with a specific BIM profile that
reflects their in-house skill level to distinguish them from others.
Respondents highlighted that designers and their consultants need to
become smart about how they engage BIM on a variety of design, delivery
and operation/maintenance related processes.This can occur in parallel to
building up a firms core modelling capability.
Parts of the process change through BIM are achieved by making
decisions earlier on in the design process. Designers need to agree how to
advance design and documentation with stronger involvement of other
collaborators such as the engineers, the QS or the contractors. It is
therefore important to establish a new dialogue and provide decision
makers with direct access to the BIM model (even though they may not
wish to manipulate the model themselves). This is an important step in
order to make decision makers on projects understand that changes to the
documentation output cannot always be accommodated with the same
immediacy as with 2D documentation; modeling in BIM relies on a more
intricate set of dependencies.

2.7. Monodisciplinarity design exploration in professional silos

Current BIM tools still barely support early design collaboration across
various disciplines.The predominant part of BIM research and development
addresses intra-disciplinary concerns as well as object model coordination
across disciplines in the advanced design stages. Considering the type of
work currently supported by the main BIM software platform, users witness
a strong push by software providers to create all-round tools that can
assist designers in their creative processes from early conceptual design all
the way to the delivery of projects. Identified as a shortcoming in BIM [22],
mass modelling and conceptual design has seen particular progress over the
past years with numerous tools being developed that allow users to overlay
and interface virtual concept models with basic building performance
feedback.

476

Dominik Holzer


Figure 6: AIA California Council,

comparing project phases between
traditional and integrated delivery.

In the light of the above, the California Council of the American Institute of
Architects addresses the interfacing potential we see as part of Integrated
Project Delivery (IPD).They changed the definition of their traditional early
design stages (pre-Design, Schematic Design and Design Development) into
Conceptualization Criteria Desigin and Detailed Design, [Figure 6]. In
particular the mention of Criteria Design offers a view into a future where
collaborators use BIM models to quickly test and evaluate various design
options across disciplines.The AIA states [18]:
During this period, different options are evaluated and tested. In a
project using Building Information Modeling, the model can be used
to test what if scenarios and determine what the team will
accomplish.
Architects typically assume that their capability to explore in early stage
design is constrained by consultants who only want to model and analyse as
few options as possible. This attitude may provide a reason for designers to
be suspicious about collaborating through BIM early on.Then again, it is
barely possible to encounter software solutions suited to facilitate decision
making across collaborating disciplines who wish to quickly evaluate
multiple design options, infused by (close to) real time performance
feedback. BIM models containing detailed descriptions of building objects
are in most cases too information-rich to become useful during criteria
design, where constant changes occur.
Designers, consultants and the contractor operate in an asynchronous
manner.There is usually a time-lag between design changes proposed by the
architect, the response from the engineers who run their analysis and the
interpretation of the design information by the contractor. Due to
traditional project setup, consultants and contractors are often excluded
from early stage decision making.They are brought on board of the design
team in the more advanced stages of planning.The increasing availability of
ubiquitous processing power through cloud computing is likely to allow
consultants and contractors to speed up delivery and to diminish the lag
between design and performance checks.

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

477

Collaborators on design projects require computational frameworks that

allow for a more instant transition between conceptual design and analysis
models (such as those facilitated through the cloud) while including easily
comprehensible visualisation capabilities for decision support. Such
frameworks would alleviate the burden of remodeling and setting up
separate simulation runs by consultants. In order to overcome the different
notations and profession-specific geometry definitions, such frameworks
would also need to include smart filters that allow a range of diverse
simulation runs to access different semantic representations of the same
geometric entities.

3. CONCLUSIONS
The development of BIM is making strong progress, driven by its increasing
uptake in the industry.With BIM capabilities becoming broader, BIM users
witness the challenges associated with its implementation becoming broader
as well.The seven sins of BIM implementation, as listed in this paper, can
present significant impediments in its uptake. At the same time, none of the
sins are insurmountable. Few of them (if any) are rooted in misconceptions
on a technological side. In many cases, technological advances and the
proliferation of software have driven the uptake of BIM in architectural
practice rather than a discourse about its cultural implications. Most sins
described here occur due to the incapacity or the unwillingness of
practitioners in design and construction to swiftly adopt the advantages BIM
has to offer due to cultural reasons.The building industry is more likely to
overcome this problem by increasing the dialogue with those involved in
delivering BIM projects and by focusing on the cultural (and political)
impediments that hold them back. If academic research has momentarily
taken a backseat while practice has taken the lead in pushing BIM on a
technical level, we may well witness academia re-engaging the BIM debate
on a broader, cultural level. Such feedback from academia may prove pivotal
for streamlining the social and process-driven BIM activities designers, their
consultants and the contractors engage in. Architects, their consultants and
contractors who use BIM will continue to discover and debate more such
sins. Ultimately, they will more likely succeed in managing the challenges
ahead of them if they engage in close collaboration between academic and
practice based research.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support received by BVN
Architecture, the Spatial Information Architecture Lab at RMIT University
Melbourne, and Darren Tims at Rice Daubney.

478

Dominik Holzer

References
1. Mark, E. Gross, M. and Goldschmidt, G., A Perspective on Computer Aided
Design after Four Decades, Architecture in Computro [26th eCAADe Conference
Proceedings], Antwerpen, 2008.
2. Mitchell, B.,Thinking in BIM, Architectural Transformations via BIM, a+u, A+U
Publishing,Tokyo, 2009.
3. Akin, O. and Anadol, Z.,Whats wrong with CAD?, 4th International Symposium on
Systems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics, Baden-Baden, 1993.
4. Maver,T.W., CAADs Seven Deadly Sins, CAAD Future Proceedings, Singapore, 1995.
5. Gero, J. S., Advances in IT for building design, in: M Anson, J. Ko and E. Lam (eds),
Advances in Building Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002.
6. Kvan,T.The dual heritage of CAAD research, International Journal of Architectural
Computing, vol.2, iss.1, 2004.
7. Koutamanis, A., CAADs seven arguable virtues, International Journal of Architectural
Computing, vol.2, iss.1, 2004.
8. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia and Autodesk, BIM in Australia
2010, http://www.architecture.com.au/i-cms?page=1.13262.13289.13527.14980,
[09-11-2011].
9. Deutsch, R., BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, AIA,
2011.
10. Downes, L., The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and
Business in the Digital Age, Basic Books, 2009.
11. Architectural Transformations via BIM, ed. By Yoshida, N., A+U Publishing,Tokyo,
2009.
12. MacLeamy, P., Project Effort and Impact, http://www.buildingsmartsd.org/ [19-92011].
13. Bazjanac,V. Understanding the BIM in NBIMS, Building Technologies Department,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, 2008.
14. Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., and Froese,T. Building information
modelling demystified: does it make business sense to adopt BIM?, International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business,Vol. 2 Iss: 3, 2009.
15. Davies, D.,The MacLeamy Curve, The blog of nz Architecture,
http://www.nzarchitecture.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/15/macleamy/ [11-112011].
16. Gallaher, M. P., OConnor, A. C., Dettbarn Jr. J. L., and Gilday, L.T., Cost Analysis of
Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, 2004
17. McGraw Hill, The Business Value of BIM: Getting BIM to the Bottom Line, 2009,
http://www.bim.construction.com/research/ [11-11-2011].
18. AIA, A Working Definition Integrated Project Delivery, McGraw Hill ENR Regional
Publications, Sacramento, 2007.
19. Kieran, S. and Timberlake, J., Cellophane House, KieranTimberlake Publishers,
Philadelphia, 2011.
20. FACIT, http://www.facit-homes.com/, [19-9-2011].
21. Penn State University, BIM Execution Planning, http://bim.psu.edu/, [19-9-2011].
22. Holzer, D., Optioneering in Collaborative Design Practice, International Journal of
Architectural Computing, vol.8, iss.2, 2010

BIMs Seven Deadly Sins

479

Dominik Holzer
AEC Connect
1/36 Berkeley St., 3053 Carlton,VIC, Australia
dholzer@aecconnect.com

480

Dominik Holzer